> On 21 Dec, 2018, at 12:37 pm, Shefali Gupta <shefaligup...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In the meantime, we have added the following plots to our wiki: > > 1. Number of packet drops per time interval > > Link: > https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Proactive-Drop-Count-per-time-interval-graphs > > 2. A file showing the timestamp of each drop > > Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Drop-Timestamp-Files
Interesting - but very very odd. COBALT is apparently not behaving anything like as designed. As an immediate point, the first drop occurs 2 whole seconds later than either Codel or PIE, which is completely at odds with the excellent control of the initial slow-start phase seen in other graphs. I took the timestamp files, dumped them into a spreadsheet column each, and plotted 1/(T(n)-T(n-1)) for each drop event against the raw timestamps. This yields a view of the instantaneous drop frequency. Because PIE sometimes drops multiple packets at once, yielding very high values here, I truncated the Y-axis at 1000 Hz. The Codel implementation shows the expected behaviour of a linear ramp of drop frequency over time during its dropping phases. The COBALT implementation does not. Indeed, during a single phase, COBALT's dropping frequency appears to vary chaotically, as if it is implementing random-drop instead of timed drops. - Jonathan Morton
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
